Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, after seven long weeks, we finally have a decision from the Supreme Court as to what they are going to do with the multiple so-called assault weapons bans that currently sit before it. Now, this came down to an 8-to-1 decision. The only dissenting judge was Judge Alo, so it was almost unanimous. Let's go ahead and talk about what exactly happened and what this means for the future.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said before, Justice Alo was the only one that was in dissent in this 8-to-1 decision. This 8-to-1 decision did something that I completely did not expect. I was expecting a GVR to be granted, vacate the lower court's decision, and remand it back down to them. But that's not what happened at all. As a matter of fact, they decided to deny all of these cases.

Now, I know there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be seriously out there, and I guarantee you, I was one of those until I read Justice Thomas's thoughts and his statement. Now, I'm going to show you guys Justice Thomas's statement here in just a second, and that should ease things up just a bit. But basically, what these eight justices said is that these cases, being interlocutory, meaning that there's more to do at the lower court level, should be left for the lower courts to finish before they ever make it up to the Supreme Court. So, they basically want them to exhaust every avenue that they have prior to accepting it up at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court basically wants a finished case.

Now, there's some good and some bad about that. Obviously, the lower courts, the Seventh Circuit, they can drag things on, and they can move things around and make things take time, just like with Miller out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been going on for nearly a decade now. They can kind of do something similar. However, Justice Thomas gave them more clear instructions and I think addressed some things from the lower court that will basically overturn at least one of these cases within the lower court. So, let me just read this to you real quick. Now, I want you guys to listen to this very closely because this is very powerful language. This language could help overturn the bans in the Ninth Circuit, in the Seventh Circuit, and if it doesn't get overturned by the lower courts, he's basically saying, bring it back up to us. We will fix things. We will overturn it.

So, it says here, a statement from Justice Thomas decided July 2, 2024: "The petitions for writ of certiorari are denied. Justice Alo would grant the petitions for writ of certiorari. Statement of Justice Thomas: The state of Illinois enacted a law that makes it a felony to possess what Illinois branded 'assault weapons,' a term defined to include AR-15s." Now, this next part is extremely important, and you have to understand what they're acknowledging here, where it says, "The AR-15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in America." So again, they're acknowledging that and therefore undeniably in common use today. And that is, uh, that's from Heller. So it obviously, by Supreme Court standards, passes the common use test for lawful purposes.

Now, what's interesting here is that Justice Thomas, after he mentions Heller, he also mentions Kavanaugh in his dissent in Cargill and Sotomayor in her dissent in Cargill, describing "semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s as commonly available." So that's what she wrote in her dissent, and that is now what is being used. So, I just thought that that was really interesting. It also says here, "Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected petitioners' request for preliminary injunction, concluding that the AR-15 is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that's in Bevis v. City of Naperville." According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle selected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of arms referred to by the Second Amendment.

This court is rightly wary of taking cases on an interlocutory posture, but I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. Now, he continues on to say, "We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are arms protected by the Second Amendment. To be sure, we explained in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment's protection extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. And we noted that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, recognizing the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. But this minimal guidance is far from a comprehensive framework for evaluating restrictions on types of weapons, and it leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon bearable, dangerous, or unusual, etc. The Seventh Circuit's decision illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers. By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit," and you have to see there that they did, Justice Thomas noticed that they contorted their precedent, "the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect militaristic 'militaristic weapons.' It then tautologically defined militaristic weapons as those that may be reserved for military use. The Seventh Circuit's contrived non-militaristic limitation on the arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history."

Now, this is an interesting quote as well, where it says, "The AR-15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semi-automatic. In my view, Illinois's ban is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes." And it continues on even to say, "It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semi-automatic rifles are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely a preliminary look at the subject. But if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America's most common civilian rifle, we can and should review the decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The court must not permit the Seventh Circuit to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

Now, on one hand, this sucks. They should have taken the cases, they should have heard them, they should have clarified things for the lower courts, they shouldn't allow people's rights to be trampled on while the appellate courts take their time and waste their time on these things. They should provide some relief, some constitutional relief to the people while everything is figured out. And in doing so, they could have used language like that or language that would have completely overturned every other ban in this country. So, this is really bad. It's bad.

But on the other hand, it's also good in the fact that they're saying, "Hey, look, you got it wrong. These are in common use for lawful purposes. It's the most popular one in America. There's no way that you can get around that. It's not militaristic. No military in the world would ever use something like this. So, you can't use those as well." And so, the Seventh Circuit's going to have to look at that. They're going to have to look at what Justice Thomas said, what some of the others said, and they're going to have to use that when they're coming up with their final decisions in these cases. And that might work out in our favor. But even if it works out in our favor, I still think that the Supreme Court should have taken them. Whether they take them now or later is just putting things off. I understand the whole interlocutory thing. They want the lower courts to finish their work before they step in. But dude, at some point, like, come on. It has been, you know, decades now that we have been trying to get relief here, and, you know, we're not getting any help. So, I think that the Supreme Court should have done something. But I am happy that it's not over.

Now, people are going to say, "What about a GVR? Why didn't they just GVR it, right? They could have granted, vacated, and remanded it down to the Seventh Circuit." Well, in doing that, that would have actually taken more time because that would have wiped everything off the table, and the Seventh Circuit would have had to start all over again. And who knows if the Seventh Circuit would have done what the Ninth Circuit did, which is send things back down to the district court level to start all over, like post-Bruen or something, right? And then the district court would have to figure everything out, and it would have to go through the entire process again up at the Seventh Circuit. By not denying it, right, by simply sending it back down for them to finish up, it keeps its place. It's like a bookmark, right? So, it keeps its spot in line, and it doesn't move anything out of the way. So, everything is as it was, and now it can move forward. So, that's kind of where I think I'm actually glad that the GVR didn't happen and that they denied it. If they were going to deny it, but they denied it now, at least it stays in its same pattern, meaning that it would be back up to the Supreme Court a lot faster in the future, possibly next conference. I know there are people that are worried that it's going to last for years, but I think next year's conference we're going to see these back up here.

So, I want to let you guys know about that. Thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. It's pretty unfortunate. I was hoping we would get some type of support here, but we didn't. Well, not much at least. We got a little bit. Anyway, thanks again. Have a good one.

Today the Supreme Court Issued its decision in Garland v. Cargill. An FPC case that challenges the ATFs ban and "final rule". Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion writing that the ban is unlawful. This was a 6-3 decision

Hey everybody, how's it going, and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Today is a great day—we just got the decision from the Supreme Court in Garland v. Cargill, which is the FPC case that challenged the ATF's ban on bump stocks. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the majority has overturned the ATF's bump stock ban. Let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, make sure you hit that subscribe button and that little notification bell. We have some really good things coming down the pipeline. If you know someone interested in this topic, share it out on your socials and let them know what's going on.

This was not a unanimous decision; it was split along ideological lines. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority, who seem to believe in the rule of law and the laws Congress actually passes, including the Constitution. The dissent, coming from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan, seems to be more driven by emotion and advocacy.

Now, I want to read a bit of Justice Thomas's opinion. Keep in mind, this was never really about bump stocks. It was about ATF overreach—their ability to interpret the NFA and GCA in ways that expand their regulatory authority. Essentially, the ATF took it too far and continues to do so, making this decision a referendum on their recent final rules.

On June 14th, 2024, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court: "Congress has long since restricted access to 'machine guns,' a category of firearms defined by the ability to 'shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.' Semi-automatic firearms, which require shooters to re-engage the trigger for every shot, are not machine guns. This case asks whether or not a bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly re-engage the trigger and achieve a high rate of fire, converts the rifle into a 'machine gun.' We hold that it does not and therefore affirm."

In the following paragraphs, Justice Thomas and the majority explain why they believe a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They cite examples, one being that a bump stock does not enable a single function of the trigger to discharge multiple rounds. The trigger still needs to be reset and pulled back each time, regardless of assistance from the bump stock.

Some of the language in the opinion is interesting and could be useful for challenging "assault weapon" bans, as it clarifies that these firearms are not identical to military weapons. Although I read most of the opinion (about 90%, skipping some of the dissent as it drove me nuts), I found some valuable nuggets we can use.

Justice Alito, who wrote a concurrence, seemed to suggest his hands were tied. He appeared to want to uphold the ban but was compelled to follow the law, which is how it's supposed to work. He indicated to Congress that if they want changes, they must write new law to clarify the NFA and GCA.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent was ideological, reflecting a viewpoint driven by emotional responses to specific events rather than strict adherence to the law. It seemed to advocate for banning bump stocks based on their use in high-profile incidents, using legal arguments to justify a broader agenda.

This decision is significant news. We'll continue to analyze the opinion to find elements that could aid in other cases, similar to the benefits gained from the Bruen decision, a carry case. This opinion could offer positive benefits as well.

Thank you all for watching. I really appreciate it. Another great day here—have a good one!

The Supreme Court held conference last Thursday on 5-23 and today we learned the fate of multiple cases that we have been watching very closely. Several cases from the state of Illinois hang on the Supreme Courts willingness to hear them. Today we got the latest decision.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. I know that everybody's been waiting for some time now. Some of these cases actually got to the Supreme Court back in February, and here we are at the end of May. People have been waiting to see whether or not the Supreme Court is going to take up one of these incredibly important cases. We're talking about cases dealing with modern rifle bans, magazine restrictions, and limitations. There are several different lawsuits currently sitting before the Supreme Court right now, like Harold v. Raoul and so forth. The Supreme Court just keeps punting these things down, and last Thursday, they had another conference to determine what they were going to do with them.

We had a day off for the Supreme Court yesterday, so when things would typically come out yesterday, they didn't. Instead, the results of the last conference came out today. So, we're going to talk about what happened to all of these different cases. Let's get to it.

Before we get started, I know I mention this quite a bit, but more than half the people that watch these videos are still not yet subscribed. If you don't mind, hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us expand and grow and get our message out to more people. If you're somebody that wants to stay on top of your constitutional rights, go ahead and hit that little alarm bell. I've been doing this for about 12 years now, and we're going to keep pushing forward. So, a huge thank you to everybody that supported this channel up until this point and a thank you to everybody who subscribes today. Let's get to it.

Why don't we start off by taking a look at what's before the Supreme Court right now so that you have a better understanding of exactly what's at stake? Each one of these cases was set for conference on May 23rd, which again was last Thursday. So, that's when they were up for consideration. The first one is going to be Harold v. Raoul. That is an excellent case which challenges Illinois's so-called assault weapons ban, their magazine capacity restrictions, and so forth. It asks the court several questions. That's one that I would love to see them take. We also have Herrera v. Raoul, which falls more along the lines of whether or not these devices and these tools are actually protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

Then we have Barnett v. Raoul, and the question there is whether Illinois's sweeping ban on common and lawful arms violates the Second Amendment. Again, they're basically asking the court to clarify that what they're doing in Illinois is actually a violation of our constitutional rights. We also have NAGR v. City of Naperville, which asks several questions about the common use test. It asks whether the state of Illinois's ban on certain handguns is constitutional in light of the holding in DC v. Heller, which stated that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional. There are a couple more questions after that, but that's a very important one as well.

Then we also have Langley v. Kelly, which questions whether the state of Illinois's absolute ban on certain commonly owned semi-automatic handguns is constitutional in light of the holding of DC v. Heller. Again, this is similar to NAGR. It also questions whether the state of Illinois's absolute ban on commonly owned semi-automatic handgun magazines over 15 is constitutional. Again, these are all challenging either bans or limitations and restrictions. Each one of these is, in some ways, a little bit different.

Lastly, we have GOA v. Raoul, and their question to the Supreme Court is whether Illinois's categorical ban on millions of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the nation, including the AR, violates the Second Amendment. That is the basic breakdown of what those questions are and the cases that are currently sitting before the Supreme Court right now, just waiting for their moment.

If you saw my last video, you know we've been waiting on this for quite a while because the first time that these things went to conference, we all waited for that following Monday to see whether or not they would take any of them or maybe GVR them, meaning Grant, Vacate, and Remand back down to the lower courts. What were they going to do? There should be some movement. The only case that we ended up losing was the Maryland case, so they basically launched that one out. These other ones were still set for a further conference on the 23rd.

There was a day off yesterday, so today they released the fact that again they have decided to completely punt these down the road to another conference set for May 30th, which is just the day after tomorrow. So again, another Thursday conference. When they were punted the first time from that first conference to the 23rd, I thought maybe they needed more time to research and look up whether or not one kind of conflicts with the other or they're too similar. Maybe they're going to take one over another, and they're still doing their job, right? Whether or not they're going to take one was still kind of up in the air. But now here we are, and some of these are on their second or third time up for consideration, and they're still putting them down the line. It doesn't give me all that much hope. It kind of takes some of that hope away.

I'm hearing that leading scholars in this area are actually saying that if it goes to conference this Thursday and we don't hear anything again, it's an extremely bad sign. I would be stunned if the Supreme Court doesn't take something this time because obviously, with the amount of questions that are being asked and the number of lawsuits that have made their way to the Supreme Court, it is absolutely high time that they take one of these and simply answer some of these questions that we're asking. That is their job. This is a constitutional question. We want clarification. We want to know things and we want the government set straight. We want the lower courts to know that what they're doing is ignoring Heller and Bruen in a lot of cases. They are just completely twisting it and rewarding it so that it fits their own personal agendas, and then they're coming out with these rulings that are just absolutely ludicrous. A lot of them.

So, this stuff is all over the place, and the Supreme Court is the one that needs to step in and take these. There have to be other people out there that are as pissed as I am. I checked on every single one of these cases. I went to each one of their docket numbers and I checked the schedule to see exactly what's going on. Every single one that we mentioned here today has been reset for hearing on Thursday the 30th, the day after tomorrow. The chance is not gone; it's just very minimal at this point. We'll see what happens, but we're not going to find anything out again until next Monday.

As of right now, they just keep punting it down the line and not taking responsibility for being in charge or being above the inferior courts. I just wanted to make you guys aware that that's what's going on right now. It doesn't seem like anybody is working for us and they're just letting it go because they don't want to be responsible for saying the truth that they are protected by the Constitution, that they are not bannable, and these things are, since before the founding of this country and since before the Constitution, legally able to be owned, possessed, and used by us.

Anyway, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

A new law is set to take effect in California on July 1st. This new law comes from a bill passed in 2023, AB28. This new law is an 11% tax that will be eventually passed to the consumer and as of now it has NO lawsuit filed against it.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. July 1st, 2024, is a date that everyone in the state of California should be paying attention to because that is the date when new gun control laws take effect. Now, there is one specific new law that is set to start, and I have been getting a lot of questions about it. There seems to be some confusion about it, and this is also one that does not have a lawsuit against it. This is something that I think a lot of people are really worried about and confused about. We're going to talk about it today, and I'll see if I can answer your questions. So, let's get to it.

Now, speaking of California post-Bruin, there are a lot of new people getting their carry permits for the very first time. Let me tell you, you do not want to go it alone if you carry to defend yourself or your loved ones. You need to get attorneys on retainer, and I'll put a link down below. Attorneys on retainer is not a big blown-up company that uses a third-party insurance company filled with a bunch of bean counters who determine whether or not they're going to cover your claim. Sometimes a self-defense scenario doesn't work out exactly as you would imagine, and you could end up in handcuffs. I don't want to be speaking to some guy at an insurance company for that.

With attorneys on retainer, they are attorneys, so when you call them, you're speaking to an attorney on the phone as your first contact, which gets you instant attorney-client privilege. It is absolutely priceless to have in your wallet. Now, your membership with these attorneys actually gets you quite a bit of coverage in all 50 states: 24/7/365 emergency line licensed with a staff attorney, 100% of your criminal and self-defense fees covered through trial, free strategy sessions, and additional non-self-defense legal matters at 35% off. All of that coverage includes bail bonds, expert witnesses, investigator fees, and an emergency contact card that gives you the information you need. These guys will cover you when others will not, so you definitely need to check out attorneys on retainer. The link again is down below, and I've got some significant savings for you down there as well, so check that out.

Okay, so one of the new laws that I'm getting the most questions about, starting on July 1st, 2024, is the new 11% tax. People are pretty upset about that. The reason is that things are already so expensive in California. You're talking about huge taxes, and then there are fees tacked on top of that, your background check fees, and then you have to do your safety certificate and pay a fee for that. There are all sorts of things already going on. Adding another 11% tax would essentially make a 22% tax on top of all of those other fees when you're trying to get something. This is going to be huge. It's going to make it completely unaffordable for some people. Really, what it is doing is stopping an entire class of people from being able to afford one of their rights.

One of the questions I'm getting is whether there will be lawsuits to fight back against this. Keep in mind that this is not an 11% tax directly on the people; it's an 11% tax on the industry. This 11% tax on the industry cannot be absorbed by the industry. I can tell you right now that margins are pretty low. An 11% tax on the industry would be damning, so what they're going to do is translate that 11% tax into an additional fee tacked onto whatever you buy. Even though it's not a sales tax, it will be a tax assessed by the consumer. People are upset about it, and rightly so. One of the questions I've been getting is why there is no lawsuit challenging this. The answer is that there is currently no lawsuit challenging that 11%.

Let me answer why that is. Before we talk about why there's not a lawsuit against this—because we would definitely expect one—I want to ease your mind a little bit by telling you that Chuck Michelle, the founding member of Michelle and Associates and the volunteer president of the CRPA, said that they're chomping at the bit to get to this. They're not the only ones. This gives me hope because CRPA and Michelle and Associates, especially together, are an unbeatable team and some of the best out there. That's at least some good news. We all want to file a lawsuit against this law. The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents manufacturers and retailers, and they have the funding. They're ready to pull the trigger and have lawyers lined up. They're ready to do it. It's not as simple as you might think to challenge this tax. That said, if there's a way, we have the will.

I'm going to put this in the simplest terms because it doesn't need to be confusing or drawn out. The reason there's no lawsuit yet is that there's no plaintiff. While this law exists, it hasn't taken effect yet, so nobody has been subject to that additional 11% tax. Since nobody's been subject to it, we don't have a plaintiff. There needs to be a plaintiff first who can say, "Hey, this has affected me in a negative way. I feel like it's violating my constitutional rights," or whatever the case ends up being. This case is going to be more challenging than other straightforward TOA cases. When we say that California banned something they are not allowed to ban because it's protected by the Constitution, that's a straight-up Second Amendment case. They can take that to court and use Bruin and so forth. This, being an excise tax not directly aimed at the consumer but at the industry, even though it will affect the consumer, will be a lot more difficult to challenge. But the fact that we have groups willing to challenge it is very good news. There is basically no case yet, and we can expect no case until after this actually takes effect because there's no plaintiff.

The problem is it's not a clear Second Amendment case because of its nature as a tax. There are a lot of tangential issues. This happens sometimes; you get involved in a lawsuit and end up spending tens of thousands of dollars litigating some side issue like standing or whether your case is a facial or an as-applied challenge. That just costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. One of the issues slowing down the filing of a lawsuit is the doctrine that says in order to challenge a tax, you first have to pay the tax.

I know this isn't a very long video, but I was just recently out in California for Mother's Day weekend, so I spent a few days out there. While I was there, I met some people, and one of the things we talked about was that 11% tax. There was a lot of confusion about it. People thought it was an 11% tax directly on the consumer. People were asking, "What's going on with it? What's the status? Are there lawsuits?" More than one person I met brought it up. If there's that much confusion about it, it should be something we talk about. So if you know anybody wondering what's going on, make sure you share this video with them. If you haven't subscribed yet, continue to subscribe. We've got some big stuff coming up that we definitely need to talk about, including stuff happening at SCOTUS. Again, hit that subscribe button and the little bell notification. Thank you all very much for watching. You guys have a good one.

Every year in California there are a dozen or more new gun control bills that become law. Trying to keep up with all of them I missed a few very important ones, passed and signed, set to take effect. Today I cover a couple of those missed.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Every year, on average, we see a dozen or more new gun control bills get passed and signed in the state of California. They're always trying to outdo themselves, always trying to come up with something new to make their constituents in the big cities happy. Last year was no different, except I missed a few of the new bills, and the ones I missed are actually designed to get you into trouble. These are particularly bad ones, and they've already passed and are set to take effect. Today, we're going to talk about these new bills and what they're designed to do, so pay attention.

Before we get started, I know I mention this quite a bit, but more than half the people who watch these videos are not yet subscribed. If you don't mind, hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, and it really helps us expand, grow, and get our message out to more people. If you want to stay on top of your constitutional rights, hit that little alarm bell. I've been doing this for about 12 years now, and we're going to keep pushing forward. A huge thank you to everyone who has supported this channel up to this point and to everyone who subscribes today. Let's get to it.

Let's dive right into this because it's something that everyone across the country needs to know about. What happens in California tends to spread to other states. If you live in another blue state like Illinois or New York, you could see this coming your way. The first bill we're going to discuss is AB 574. Let me put this up on the screen so we can read it together.

AB 574 was signed into law in 2023 and takes effect on March 1, 2025. It mandates that the register or record of sale includes an acknowledgment by the purchaser or transferee that they have, within the last 30 days, confirmed possession of every firearm they own or possess. Now, that's just the first one. We'll talk about the other one in a second, but first, I want to explain why this is a sneaky way of getting you to incriminate yourself.

Essentially, what they're trying to get you to do is fill out an affidavit stating that you have checked within the last 30 days and are aware of the location of everything you own or possess. Your name is right at the bottom of this affidavit. I think this adds to the whole lost or stolen reporting issue because a lot of people aren't reporting things lost or stolen due to the small window allowed, which causes fear of getting into trouble for late reporting. So, people end up not reporting at all. You basically sign this affidavit saying you've checked everything within the last 30 days. If something shows up somewhere, they have that affidavit saying you checked on it and should know where it is, meaning you are clearly lying. Guess who gets caught up in all that?

People may not know about it or may just go along with it even if they haven't checked. Some people have had things taken without even knowing they're gone, but just want to speed up the transaction and sign the statement. Now, they have that on record every time you get something new. So, the whole time period is covered where you said you know where it is, but if it shows up somewhere, you've contradicted yourself. This could lead to issues like lying on a government document, among other things, and could wrap you up for a long time for something as simple as this.

The next bill, AB 725, sort of correlates with the first one and takes effect after the first effective date. Starting July 1, 2026, it expands the definition of a firearm to include a frame or receiver, including both completed frames or receivers or precursor parts, in the provisions that require a person to report anything lost or stolen to law enforcement. This expands the number of things that need to be reported within California's short window.

With a March 2025 start date on the first law, you'll need to check everything you own. Then, with the July 2026 start date on the next law, you'll have to check more things, including precursor parts. For someone who owns only a few items, this might not seem like much, but for someone like me, it's a lot to keep track of. These two laws essentially piggyback on each other, creating a big "gotcha" scheme by expanding what needs to be reported as lost or stolen while requiring you to sign an affidavit stating you've checked everything.

A lot of people won't keep track of all these changes, which makes it easy to get caught up in this scheme. It's important to be aware of these laws and prepare for them. California likely won't stop here and may reclassify more items to fall under these new definitions. Tomorrow, I'll cover another new law that could extend waiting periods from 10 days to 30 days or more. I missed these laws throughout the year with all the national and state-level changes, but felt it was important to bring them to your attention.

Thank you all very much for watching. I really appreciate it. Please like, subscribe if you haven't already, and hit that little alarm bell to be notified when new videos come out. Have a great day.

A Federal District Court Judge in New York has upheld one of the worst new laws in the state. This law which is very similar to one in California was upheld by the Judge who cited a 1756 law on Catholics as a historical analog.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, this is a very important video today because a federal judge has just upheld one of the most unconstitutional and anti-second Amendment laws in the entire state of New York. As a matter of fact, it's nearly identical to an existing law they have in the state of California. It seems like all of the activist judges since Bruin have just wormed their way out of the woodwork and they're really showing their true colors.

So, let's talk about what just happened. Now, real quick before we get started, if you're like me and you believe firmly in defending yourself and your loved ones whether you're in the home or outside the home, you need to do what I did and sign up for attorneys on retainer. I mean, let's face it, not all self-defense incidents are clear-cut. If there's even a small question about whether or not what you did is right, there's a good chance that you're going to end up in handcuffs and taken to jail. You're going to need somebody that's going to be there for you to defend you, and that doesn't come from some pencil pusher in an insurance company. You need attorneys on retainer. If an incident pops up, you call attorneys on retainer. An attorney giving you instant client privilege will pick up the phone, they will guide you through things, they will be there to represent you, and they will take care of you all the way through court. Now, if you're interested in attorneys on retainer, go ahead and check out the link down in the description box. There's also a discount code which is cjtv that'll save you 50 bucks off sign up.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So, a federal judge, Judge Grassy—I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and to be honest with you, I don't care—a judge that would uphold a law like this for the reasons that this judge decided to uphold this law does not deserve my respect or your respect. Regardless, a federal judge in the state of New York has decided to uphold the ammunition background check law in that state, the one that's been such a massive failure, a huge problem with a lot of false positives. Plenty of people have been denied, plenty of people have been delayed. I mean, these people are good law-abiding citizens who have never done anything wrong and they're not able to practice their Second Amendment rights because of that system, which is just an absolute mess, just like it was when it rolled out in the state of California.

Well, you want to know why this judge upheld this law? I got to read this to you because honestly, it's close to unbelievable. It is close to unbelievable, and if you're Catholic, get ready for this one. Okay, so this is directly from the judge's order, and remember, this is post Bruin, and the judge actually did say that ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, they have to look at the nation's history and traditions of firearm regulations in order to find some type of analog that is comparable to today's law in order for it to be legal, in order for it to be upheld. So, the judge writes this:

"The government offers several historical examples of laws that were enacted to disarm dangerous individuals, but the court will discuss only one of the many analogues offered. In colonial Virginia, the legislature dictated that no Catholics shall or may have or keep in his house or elsewhere or in the possession of any other person to his use or at his disposition any arms, weapons, gunpowder, or ammunition because it was determined that it is dangerous at this time to permit Catholics to be armed."

I mean, it's directly from his order. That's the historical analog that he used to uphold New York's law. Okay, so let's go and unpack this absolutely nutty historic analog that the judge is leaning on here. There's so many problems with it, it's incredible that he decided to even use it.

So, first off, again, we're post Bruin. The Supreme Court said that we're supposed to look at this nation's history and traditions of firearm regulation from the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, maybe up until the Reconstruction Era of the 1860s. Okay, so that's our timeframe. That's the time period that the lower courts are supposed to look at. This number one is a law from the 1750s. It is well outside of the timeframe that the courts are supposed to look at when considering historical analogues. So, that sort of invalidates this law altogether. But if you want to go a little bit further, we can definitely do that.

Number one, this is also a law that didn't last very long. This is not a longstanding tradition and some type of historical tradition that we can lean on to say that, hey, look, this is something that has existed in our country since the ratification. We can't do that because see, this law didn't even exist for that long. It was a short-lived law that specifically just targeted Catholics and had nothing to do with about them being dangerous and had to do with the religious problems that existed for a hundred years prior to that, that goes all the way back to England. Okay, so this is something that could be traced back to, you know, kings and problems that they had with, you know, their subjects. I mean, we're talking about the colonies preamer here. So, this is not only outside of the purview but it just did not hold up in any way, shape, or form.

Now, you're probably asking yourself if the judge was presented with so many historical analogues, why would he just choose this one which is essentially invalid to begin with? And that's because the other historical analogues provided by the state were even further off than this one. I mean, they were almost not analogous at all, just like this one isn't really. I mean, this one is not analogous to today's law. But what the judge did is he decided to oversimplify things.

And when I say oversimplify, I mean oversimplify to the millionth degree. Basically, what he's saying is this particular law, which was very short standing, banned powder and ammunition and stuff from dangerous people. And so since that was the case, he says, well, you know, dangerous people weren't allowed to have those things, and therefore we should allow New York's background check scheme to stand. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me. It probably doesn't make sense to you. But this guy tried to tie it in a nice little bow. It just doesn't hold up. It doesn't work out. Nevertheless, the judge decided to uphold the law anyway.

And if that historical analogue is the best you have, you are grasping for some serious straws there because it's not even close. This is what has happened post Bruin. If you guys remember when Bruin first came down, there was this big uproar from people saying this is going to change everything. This is—they're illegitimate, the Supreme Court, and what they're doing is tearing down all of our decades of work that we've done in our progress for safety and so forth, right? You remember, everybody was up in arms. You had all the different governors from all the different states that were just absolutely—they could not believe what the Supreme Court had just done. Now, all of a sudden, we have all these judges that are coming out of the waterworks to say, hey, no worries, we can find some type of comparison in history for just about anything. Twist them to make them work for us, and guess what? All of a sudden, all of these things are perfectly fine under Bruin anyway.

I could go on, but essentially what I'm trying to say here is that this is not a judge upholding the rule of law. This is activism, pure and simple. And when you have federal judges who are more concerned with their own personal agenda or the agenda that they're affiliated with rather than the rule of law, this is what happens. And we're going to continue to see this as they twist our nation's history and tradition to meet their agenda. So, I wanted to let you guys know about that. Obviously, there's going to be appeals. This is going to continue to go on. The case in California is going to continue to go on. It'll probably end up at the Supreme Court regardless. The law stands in New York as of today. So, I want to let you guys know about that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. All you Patriots out there are fantastic. You guys have a great day.

We got a big win in the state of California today when a major bill, AB3067 was amended to remove nearly all original language that would have forced rental and homeowner insurance companies to report on you to the state.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. I would love to see the sad faces of the California legislature right now, knowing that they can't force another unconstitutional gun control law on the people of the State of California. We had a big victory earlier today, and I want to talk to you guys about it, so let's get to it.

Now, real quick, if you're one of those lucky people in the state of California that already has a carry permit or maybe you're now able to get your first Carry Permit, you need to become a member of Attorneys on Retainer. Attorneys on Retainer is not like others; they are actual attorneys. So if you find yourself in a self-defense situation where it might be questionable, you call the number on the back of that card, and they will be there to defend you. An attorney will pick up the phone. I mean, let's face it, not all of us can afford to retain an attorney, but even if you can, that doesn't mean you'll be able to afford that attorney to represent you throughout the entire case. Attorneys on Retainer is absolutely priceless and the best peace of mind that you can have. There'll be a link down below to Attorneys on Retainer. If you use the code CJTV, that'll save you 50 bucks at sign-up for an individual plan and 25 bucks at sign-up for a family plan. So again, check out that link down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is pretty exciting. In fact, I believe this is the second win that we've had like this in the state of California in just the last month alone. If you guys watch this channel fairly regularly, you know that we've talked about this in the past. Basically, what California is trying to do is they were trying to have renters insurance and homeowners insurance companies spy on firearm owners for them. So if you rented a home or apartment and had renters insurance or owned a home with homeowners insurance, you would have to include any firearms you owned inside the home, where you kept those firearms, how you stored them, even if they were in your vehicle. You had to put all that information on your renters or homeowners insurance agreement, and then that information would be transmitted so that California could see everything you had, where you had it, and how you stored it. It was like they were de facto spying on you for the State of California.

Now, the bill that we're talking about today that would have allowed California to have all that information was AB 3067. Now, I thought this had a really good chance of passing. I thought this is exactly what they've been looking for; it's going to pass, Governor's going to sign it. But it turns out it's done. This bill is over with, and I think it's because there's been a mass exodus of insurance companies out of the state of California. Policies are too expensive to cover; the prices are too high. There's been a huge issue with insurance in the state of California, and I just don't think that they wanted to mess with that anymore.

So, what happened? Well, California does what it does best. They took the bill, they completely gutted all the language out of it, and then replaced it with something completely different. This is what the bill looked like originally. It would require an insurer by January 1st, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners or renters insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report. That's what it looked like in the very beginning.

Now, the entire thing has been stricken. I mean, it's completely gone. All of that language about firearms has been taken out of the bill. So if you're asking yourself, what is the bill about now? Well, yeah, it's completely on the opposite end of the spectrum. The bill now, still AB 3067 as amended, is about interscholastic athletics in the state of California, not about its original intent.

What really surprises me about this is usually how it works, but in the complete opposite direction. It would normally start off as interscholastic sports, make it through the entire process, get voted on by committee, and do everything it needs to do. Then that interscholastic sports language would get removed from the bill, and then the original text would be placed in the bill, and then it would move forward. That's usually how they do things in California because they know what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's the only way to make it go through. This time it actually worked in our favor.

But if you guys remember that video that I did originally on this, and I know that there were a lot of people that were pretty upset about it, you don't have to worry about it anymore. That bill is gone; the language is gone. Well, the bill still exists, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we originally talked about, so essentially, it's gone. Now, I wanted to share that with you because any win in the state of California, regardless of why or how it happened, is a big win. This is another one that will not be on the books, that will not be on people's renters or homeowners insurance policies that they'll have to fill out. This one is done. Again, it's important that you guys stay up to date on this stuff because they're so creative in the state of California that they just come up with new and unique ways to infringe on your rights almost on a daily basis.

I'll do my best to keep you guys up to date and on track with what's happening there. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Again, make sure you check out AO in the description box, and if you haven't done so already, hit that subscribe button. You guys have a great day.

In this video I break down important developments in the Supreme Court rifle and mag ban cases!

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Oregon measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down!

California's SB1160 by Senator A. Portantino which would mandate annual registration across the state is done. It has been completely amended to the point it has nothing to do with annual registration any more. This is a huge relief for everyone watching this one closely.